RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
Any reason they would be susceptible to a Detect Magic spell and the like?
How Magical ARE Magical Beasts?
- Thread starter RUMBLETiGER
- Start date
Omegaxicor
First Post
By RAW, no a Unicorn gives off no more magical energy then a dog, but it would make a nice HR (unless you play the early quest to locate the unicorn which would be made simpler) might cause some problems in some situations
Empirate
First Post
Some magical beasts like Griffins, Manticores etc. are not really that magical. They're more the kind of beasts you'd expect to find in a magical world. But in and of themselves, not inherently anymore magical than Dwarves or Elves. Unicorns are a somewhat special case, as they not only have spell-like abilities, their horn also functions as a magic weapon. I'd put a houserule where the horn itself can be detected like a magic item.
RUMBLETiGER
Adventurer
Thanks. I never assumed Magical Beasts were magical before yesterday when I got to thinking.
Greenfield
Adventurer
My own thought? Magical Beasts are fairy tale critters that don't really exist and never did. They aren't "people" class beings, nor are they necessarily "monsters" in the classic sense.
So Dragons qualify while Dinosaurs don't. Unicorns are but Centaurs aren't (because of the "people" aspect).
But just because they're fantasy creatures that aren't really found in nature doesn't mean that they are actively magical. They're more the product of magic than the source of it.
So Dragons qualify while Dinosaurs don't. Unicorns are but Centaurs aren't (because of the "people" aspect).
But just because they're fantasy creatures that aren't really found in nature doesn't mean that they are actively magical. They're more the product of magic than the source of it.
Empirate
First Post
Dragons are Magical Beasts? Not in the game term sense.
Also, if we're already talking about the concept of magical creatures in a not-the-game-term sense, the Middle Ages didn't consider manticores, griffins, or unicorns 'magical' anymore than 'normal' animals. Those creatures just happened to live far, far away and have some allegorical connotations. But Joe the Knight from Derbyshire would probably have expected to see at least one basilisk or hippogriff when he undertook that pilgrimage to the Holy Land. And even if he didn't see one on his journeys, once home, he would certainly have bragged about the caged phoenix he once saw in a Tripoli marketplace.
Furthermore, the 'people' aspect wasn't that developed, either. One-legged bouncers, Cephalopods (people consisting just of a head on feet), Cyclopses, people with ears so big they were used for blankets, people with horse feet etc. were all 'known' to exist far in the east. In how far these could be considered 'people' or 'human' wasn't much questioned; it largely depended on what beliefs they held. Christian Cyclopses were certainly a possibility!
But magic? Didn't come into the equation at all. In the Middle Ages. When magic was considered omnipresent!
Also, if we're already talking about the concept of magical creatures in a not-the-game-term sense, the Middle Ages didn't consider manticores, griffins, or unicorns 'magical' anymore than 'normal' animals. Those creatures just happened to live far, far away and have some allegorical connotations. But Joe the Knight from Derbyshire would probably have expected to see at least one basilisk or hippogriff when he undertook that pilgrimage to the Holy Land. And even if he didn't see one on his journeys, once home, he would certainly have bragged about the caged phoenix he once saw in a Tripoli marketplace.
Furthermore, the 'people' aspect wasn't that developed, either. One-legged bouncers, Cephalopods (people consisting just of a head on feet), Cyclopses, people with ears so big they were used for blankets, people with horse feet etc. were all 'known' to exist far in the east. In how far these could be considered 'people' or 'human' wasn't much questioned; it largely depended on what beliefs they held. Christian Cyclopses were certainly a possibility!
But magic? Didn't come into the equation at all. In the Middle Ages. When magic was considered omnipresent!
Samloyal23
Adventurer
A magical beast is usually just an animal that did not evolve normally, but was altered at some point by the influence of supernatural forces, whether the involvement of a god (as in minotaur) or a wizard (as in the cockatrice). Some, such as unicorns and displacer beasts, are more magical than others...
Empirate
First Post
And what, pray tell, is 'normal' evolution in a fantasy world? Note that Elves and Humans have quite a few Wizards and Sorcerers (and Bards AND Duskblades andandand...) among their ranks. Are these nonmagical species, then, just because they don't have spell-likes or supernaturals right off the bat? If so, what about Gnomes?
Samloyal23
Adventurer
Obviously magic will effect everything a little, but in some cases it is more direct and potent than others. I would say the owlbear was likely made intentionally. Whereas some gnomes just picked up a gene for a latent talent and it got spread. Humans have no such inborn talent normally, they just use hard work.
